About your Search

20130318
20130326
Search Results 0 to 1 of about 2 (some duplicates have been removed)
outcomes then it's the policy. >> paul: and perez was housing housing law to prosecute banks with this theory. >> that's right. >> paul: and he thought this might be illegal, why? because the disparate is used in some parts, but not in housing. >> it's employment. but they don't have the same language as title vii law and he was afraid at that st. paul would win this case. by the way, st. paul itself said it thought it would win, but dropping the case because it it didn't want to endanger important anti-discrimination work that the justice department was doing. so think about that, you have a senior member of the justice department leaning on other parts of government to withdraw a case, deny the supreme court the ability to rule on this disparate practice under the fair housing act and in the meantime, having the government in the join two cases that could have brought tens of millions of dollars to taxpayers. >> paul: can you believe any case like this, jason, where the official basically got somebody to drop a case the supreme court had already accepted? >> no, no, i can't
Search Results 0 to 1 of about 2 (some duplicates have been removed)